Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits

John C Klensin <> Fri, 22 October 2021 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FDE83A1126; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oSU27OaFejMD; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D66313A11AA; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1mdy5T-000CWe-Rb; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:12:11 -0400
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:12:05 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Carsten Bormann <>, Barry Leiba <>
cc:, "Salz, Rich" <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits
Message-ID: <833B7A564DAD36FE79E40719@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 17:12:24 -0000

--On Thursday, October 21, 2021 23:07 +0200 Carsten Bormann
<> wrote:

> On 2021-10-21, at 22:43, Barry Leiba
> <> wrote:
>> At the very least, we should be able to slow down the "ADs
>> move to the IAB" routine, as it's pretty hard to justify that
>> deviation.
> Hmm, I'm not even sure I find that particular maneuver to be
> such a big problem. Clearly, the implicit incumbent bonus
> needs to be controlled here (and there should not be a
> standard revolving door), but I've seen some ex-ADs make
> great IAB members.  I think.


You have seen it.  I have seen it.  However, I have also seen
ex-ADs who have made the move without a gap immediately retire
in place, take a while to understand how the IAB is different
from the IESG, or focus on a single topic and become largely
useless for ongoing IAB work.  Whether one like the rigid rule
or not (I don't), I think the question about IESG-> IAB
transitions is whether the people who have made them -- even
those who have worked out well-- would have benefited from a
short break and forced (?) opportunity to participate as a
non-leadership community member.  FWIW, as one of those who was
moved directly from the IESG to the IAB, I almost certainly
would have.

And, in any event, I see both Rich's and Barry's proposals (and
the effect of the one I posted today) as more "take a break"
than "you are retired" and I think that distinction is important.